I can do that: Women and computer science



This past weekend, I caught part of the documentary “CODE: Debugging the Gender Gap”, being aired on CBC. CODE explores the female minority in software engineering, and computer programming. The documentary features women employed at some of the top tech companies, including Pinterest, Twitter, Apple, Facebook, Reddit etc. The documentary puts a harsh light on the blatant discrimination that goes on in the industry, and the internalized idea that women don’t do science. Evidently, by interviewing women in top positions in the field, they show that this isn’t true. That women are just as good at programming and engineering.

They also discuss how in the history of programming and software engineering, women held key roles in its advancement. For instance Grace Hopper was a computer scientist and admiral in the US Navy. She not only worked as a programmer on the Harvard Mark I (an early “proto computer” designed and built by IBM in 1944), she was the only female. She’s credited as having invented the first compiler for a computer programming language. Even the US Navy named this ship the USS Hopper after her.

Clearly an impressive woman!

CODE made me think about my own experience with programming, and engineering. My dad is an electrical engineer, and works at a company that builds solar chips and panels. My mom is the head of a computer support unit. As a kid, they enrolled me in Virtual Ventures, a summer camp run by Carleton University that taught me how to use basic html coding to build colourful websites. In high school, they signed me up for a year long set of courses that encouraged me to create photo essays using Microsoft PowerPoint, and use html coding in place of traditional essays.

Looking at my history, I can see there is a strong backing for me to do something computer related. But (and this is not a criticism of my parents in any way), I never rely felt that a career in computing was an option. The sign never went on in my head that told me “I can do this.”

Now, maybe this is because I was just “average” when it came to computing. Maybe if I had excelled, I would have been encouraged. Or, maybe it’s because I didn’t really like the camp, or the course (I can’t really remember anymore.) But, even if I was just average or un-interested, I don’t remember anyone else ever coming into my classes, or pulling me aside to talk about careers in programming.

If I start to think of this as connected to gender, I see some patterns. First, there’s the running joke in my family that my dad always wanted an engineer, and that my two male cousins (both of whom did engineering at Queen’s) fulfilled this desire. Knowing my family, I suspect that if one of my female cousins had become an engineer, he’d still be making the joke, considering I have an uncle who complains that I never became a basketball player, despite having 2 nephews and a niece who play competitively (one of whom is “6’7”.)

But in light of CODE, I feel a bit more suspicious about this. If I had been a boy, would I have been pushed more?

A clearer example of this gender bias comes again from my family. Even though my mom has more computer knowledge then my dad, both her family and his family always turn to him for computing advice…in which (after hanging up the phone), he always asks her. They never call and ask for her when there is an issue. This makes her pretty crazy.

All of this is to say that I think there is a lot of truth to what CODE has to say. We (and I’m including myself in this one) have internalized this notion that only men do science. Which is pretty ludicrous, considering there are a ton of women in my life who are interested (and good at) programming and engineering.

And I should include myself in that category! I am by no means an expert, but I shouldn’t downplay what I can do. I do all the tech support at the company I work for. While this most revolves around email and account setup, I can still do it. I still have some of the skills I picked up from my high school course including html coding. And in my Digital History class alone I’ve learned so many great tools that I can use going forward. It’s been difficult, but eventually I got there. And I’m pretty certain that this won’t stop when the class ends.

Anyways, all in all, CODE is well worth the watch!

And I think I’m going to suggest a screening at Carleton. Maybe it’s worth seeing if some of the other women in my class might be interested in holding a working group once a month where we try out different tutorials/programs…

Learn more about CODE here.


Flipping the Stage: show me more ugly

Earlier this week, Dr. Shawn Graham forwarded me on this website and project, knowing about my interest in theatre. This post is going to talk about that project, and I’ll be using both my history/theatre and digital history hats!

St. Lawrence Performing Arts Program is undertaking something that to my knowledge, is pretty unique in the performing arts world. Their using social media platforms and tools, like Instagram, Tumblr, and Snapchat, to give the public and audience members a behind the scenes look at the making of “Ash Girl”, a play by Timberlake Wertenbaker. They’re calling it “Flipping the Stage.” Here’s an explanation of what they’re doing:

Typically a theatre production is experienced for a narrowly prescribed moment—the 2-2.5 hours of performance. “Flipping the Stage” looks to lengthen and broaden the theatrical experience for the students involved in the production as well as the broader PCA department and SLU campus population by offering in-depth exposure to the production via the cast, crew, and production team.

The program was developed through the Digital Initiatives Faculty Fellowship Program. Through Flipping the Stage, they showcase the production work that goes into a show. They’ve broken down their posts into different themes/categories, including “Mystery Monday” “Technical Tuesday” “Wisdom Wednesday” “Funday Friday” “Selfie Sunday.”

The photos and snapshots show pictures of the cast picking apples together, costume mock-ups, pre-show rehearsals, script readings, inspiration, game nights etc. Here’s a snapshot of some of their posts (you can see much more through their website.)

This is a pretty brave step. Showcasing what goes on from script to stage is never easy. This kind of transparency excites me, as it’s something that I think a lot of historians are calling for in the field (and are reluctant to do). Talking about these decisions and negotiations is something I tried to do with my MRE script, and in the reflection I’ll be writing.

What the St. Lawrence Performing Arts Program is doing deserves applause, but there are some issues with it as well. I’m confident that someone involved in the Flipping the Stage program has  A) already thought of these issues, and B) will likely write/present about them at some point, but since I haven’t seen anything as of yet, I’m going to throw in my 2 cents, coming from a historical/theatre perspective, and combined with some of the things I’ve learned thus far from my Digital History class.

The biggest issue is that they’re buying into the idea that by using things like Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat, the public is getting a “real look” at what is going on in production. Whether we like to admit it or not, whenever we post something on the Web, we’re performing.  Think about how many selfies you’ve taken when you have a huge pimple on your chin…None? Yeah, not surprising. Knowing that the images we’re taking are going to be seen by others causes us to automatically filter ourselves. We all want to look like we’re living happy, fabulous, and fulfilling lives.

Not surprisingly then, the majority of the Flipping the Stage content shows a happy, fun cast. While I am in no way saying that these people weren’t happy when these photos were taken, I can’t ignore the fact that there aren’t too many photos/videos that show a stressed out director, dealings with a difficult cast member, budget issues etc. This is because we don’t often have the knee-jerk response to whip out a camera when people are fighting, and things are going wrong. However, those are the realities of theatrical production. Nothing every goes 100% according to plan, there are always hiccups.

I’d argue then that in carrying Flipping the Stage forward (which St. Lawrence Performing Arts Program should 100% do, because again it is an amazing initiative), they should strive to catch more of these kinds of interactions. Leave the camera running during rehearsal, capture those creative differences. Because it’s those things that will be interesting for public, the conversations that happen surrounding blocking, readings, and character development, that show all the minute decisions that go into a production. All the little negotiations that shape how an audience will learn a story.

Congratulations to the cast/crew of The Ash Girl, and to St. Lawrence Performing Arts Program for being bold and brave! Keep pushing forward, and keep up the good work!

See your words: Using Voyant on my MRE script

In this post, I’ll be talking a bit about my graduate research, and about the tool Voyant.

As part of my graduate research  at Carleton University I wrote a script based on a shooting outside of Ottawa, in the township of Goulbourn. One evening in August 1882, Robert McCaffrey was confronted by his lover, Maria Spearman, and her brother, on the side of the road. Maria was reportedly in the “family way”, and the two had sought out McCaffrey in order to arrange a marriage. When McCaffrey refused, a struggle occurred, which resulted in a gun being fired, and McCaffrey’s death. The headline “Murder! Shot Through the Heart” was splashed in newspapers as far away as Washington. Maria and her brother were arrested for murder, and taken to the Carleton County Gaol (now the HI-Ottawa Jail Hostel) to await the upcoming fall assizes. The story was taken up by anonymous writers to discuss the current issues of the day, including women’s rights, and the inequality of the justice system. Public outrage over the death of Robert McCaffrey soon turned to sympathy, and Maria quickly became characterized as a helpless victim, who had no other course but to take matters into her own hands. In the end, although Maria admitted she had accidentally fired the gun, the jury found her not guilty, and she returned to Goulbourn following her release.

The script I’ve written tells this story, using historical records as the skeleton of the piece. I created dialogue by combining verbatim excerpts from primary sources and then using my imagination to fill in the remaining gaps. The script also features characters based off of individuals who were involved in the creation of the script, including myself, that work to highlight the complexity of creating and performing the past. They also are a reflection on the evolution of script, and my journey throughout my research.

This script was performed by The Cellar Door Project at the end of February 2016. Now, I’m in the phase of my research that involves writing a reflection on this project.

A few weeks ago I was introduced to a tool in my Digital History course called Voyant. Voyant is a web-based tool that searches through a text you’ve uploaded, and provides information on words that frequently appear in it. For it can provide you with a graph that shows the trend of a particular word through multiple texts.

Someone in my class had mentioned they had tried Voyant on their thesis/MRE paper, to see what kinds of trends in the words they could see. I decided to give this a try on my own work, specifically with the script.


So, there are a total of 5,315 words. The most frequently used words are the (182), you (162), I (148) etc.

If you click on the small cog wheel, you have the ability to edit out these kinds of words. Select English (Taporware) from the dropdown list, and then click “OK.”


Pretty neat!


Looking at the new cirrus (the word bubble), there are a couple of words that I expected to see “Emily” “Maria” “Chester” “Robert.” These are all major characters throughout the script. I can even generate graphs that show trends in specific words. (Sorry, I went a little bananas!)

By clicking on a specific word in the cirrus, I can see how many times it appears. “Maria” appears just 5 more times than “Emily.”

Seeing “Maria” just barely scrape ahead of “Emily” prompts a wave of guilt. Seeing them side by side hit the issue of authorial presence I’ve be struggling with in my research.

“Emily” (surprise surprise) is based on me. The idea to insert myself into the script came in a roundabout way; I had been speaking with friend of mine, and while discussing my research I remember that he had been the one who had taken me out to the site of McCaffrey’s death when I was doing my early research.  I reminded him of the trip, and to my surprise he remembered it right away, even referencing the music we had been listening to on our drive out.  I was struck by this.  While I have shared my research (and the story of the shooting) with many, I hadn’t realized until that moment that my audience was listening, or that they would might take part of the story away with them.

I decided to write a scene for the script based on this conversation, which eventually became the last scene in the script. I felt that this would help me navigate some of my feelings on the subject, and be cathartic.  When I discussed the conversation I had had with members of The Cellar Door Project production team I was encouraged to cultivate this more. They urged me to consider adding myself as a primary character to the script. Immediately my guard was up.  I didn’t want to include myself in the script, after all, this was supposed to be a play about Maria Spearman.

Greg Dening in book Performances, articulates my reluctance.  He explains that most historians find authorial presence disturbing. Furthermore, he explains that the use of the subjective “I” is seen as “complicated and untrustworthy.”[1]  Historians find authorial presence disturbing because we have been instructed that our writing should be objective.  Bruno Ramirez in his work explains that the application of a structured rationality is inherent to the discipline of history, and is perceived as necessary for the attainment of historical truth.[2]  Logically, historians know objectivity is impractical, as well as unobtainable.  However, a small part of us still clings to the illusion.

Seeing “Maria” and “Emily like this a tangible manifestation of all this. Whether I like it or not, the script I’ve written is just as much about me as it is about Maria. And that, like everything I create, it comes from me.

It’s also pretty moving to see all my research filtered down into a colourful blob of words. Since after all, all the script is is a stringing together or words. It makes me think more about the words I’ve chosen to use, and what they reflect about me.

Here are some of the word trends.




[1] Greg Dening, Performances (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1996), 111.

[2] Bruno Ramirez, “Clio in Words and in Motion: Practices of Narrating the Past,” The Journal of American History 86, no.  3 (1999): 998.


“Authentic” Russian Folktale Generator

Take a spin and generator an authentic Russian folktale!

Here’s what I got from these selections:folktale

function 6: antagonist(s) attempts to deceive victim(s) / protagonist(s) in order to take possession of them or their belongings = trickery (eta)

eta3 — use of other forms of deception or coercion

function 7: victim(s) / protagonist(s) accept deception and unwittingly help antagonist(s) = complicity (theta/lamda)
zeta3 — information received by other means

function 8: antagonist(s) causes harm or injury to victim(s)/member of protagonist(s)’s family = villainy (A)
A11 — casting of a spell, transformation

function 8a: one member of family lacks/desires something = lack (a)
a5 — lack of money or means of existence

function 19: initial misfortune or lack is liquidated = liquidation (K)
K8 — breaking of spell on victim

function 19: initial misfortune or lack is liquidated = liquidation (K)
K6 — poverty done away with thru use of magical agent

function 30: false protagonist(s) or antagonist(s) punished = punishment (U)
U — punishment of false protagonist(s) or antagonist(s)

function 31: protagonist(s) marries and ascends throne = wedding (W)
W#* — protagonist(s) weds and ascends throne

dramatis personae:
person sought-for:


A little wordy, but you get the idea!

Make your own here.